Ex- Croco Motors manager’s Arlington home, three vehicles remain forfeited

Fidelis Munyoro

Chief Court Reporter

A Croco Motors former manager, Joseph Matinyarare, has lost his Supreme Court appeal to overturn the forfeiture of his Arlington home and three vehicles, which were seized by the State after being linked to proceeds of crime.

The properties, confiscated in 2023 under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act, were deemed to have been acquired through illicit means between 2016 and 2020.

But Matinyarare claimed that the assets were acquired through personal savings and a loan from his brother-in-law, Kefas Aleck Manda.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, concluding that Matinyarare failed to provide credible evidence to support his claims.

The court found that Matinyarare had not disclosed the shipping costs of the Toyota RAV4, Ford Ranger, and an Iveco Lorry, nor had he been transparent about his financial circumstances during the period in question.

Regarding the Arlington property, Matinyarare argued that it was acquired using a loan from Manda and contributions from his wife.

However, the court rejected this due to a lack of documentation to corroborate his story.

Justice Joseph Musakwa noted: “The absence of such evidence led to the reasonable conclusion that his claim lacked credibility.”

The timing of Matinyarare’s property acquisitions coincided with his involvement in criminal activities at Croco Motors, where he was implicated in the theft of motor vehicle parts.

While there was no direct evidence linking the assets to the crimes, the court ruled that the circumstances surrounding their acquisition raised legitimate concerns about their provenance.

The Arlington property, in particular, was deemed “tainted” as it was acquired during a period when Matinyarare was engaged in illegal conduct.

The Supreme Court concluded that the State had established a prima facie case against Matinyarare, shifting the burden of proof to Matinyarare, who failed to meet it.

His inability to provide credible evidence of legitimate income, combined with the circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing, led to the dismissal of his appeal with costs.